on manhattan projects...

As a young man I first encountered Fr. Schmemann through his books, especially For the Life of the World, Of Water and the Spirit, and The Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy (all published by St. Vladimir's Press). Later we would occasionally share the platform at ecumenical conferences, but I did not get to know him well until the days in Connecticut that produced “The Hartford Appeal for Theological Affirmation” of 1975....

When Peter Berger and I organized the Hartford initiative, we very much wanted Fr. Alexander to be part of it, and his participation was vital to its success. He contributed an essay to the book that came out of that effort, Against the World for the World. It was titled “East and West May Yet Meet: Hartford and the Future of Orthodoxy.” Now I discover from the journals that he was not as fully participant in Hartford as I had assumed. Right after the meeting, on September 7, 1975, he wrote, “In spite of a friendly atmosphere, I strongly felt my Orthodox alienation from all the debates, from their very spirit. Orthodoxy is often imprisoned by evil and sin. The Christian West is imprisoned by heresies—not one of them, in the long run, goes unpunished.” (The Hartford Appeal criticized ideas in American Christianity that were “pervasive, false, and debilitating.”) I was surprised by that entry, for in later conversations he indicated such strong support for Hartford. Maybe he later changed his mind. Maybe not. The journals do not say.

- from, A Man in Full, Fr. Richard John Neuhaus' excellent review of Fr. Alexander Schmemann's Journals.

When I first read this passage, I thought it a concise summary of the posture of each of these great men. Neuhaus was the consummate activist. During his lifetime he energetically participated in scores of Statements, usually named after a city, which were deemed by their supporters as "historic" and "courageous" and "prophetic," all of which are now forgotten, with none of the signers persecuted much at all, thus far.

It is obvious from what is written in the Journals that Schmemann thought the Hartford scheme, if you may allow me the use a technical term of ecclesio-politics, not lacking in bullshit. Hartford was one of those theological Statements (it was an attack on modernist diminishments of theology), Neuhaus would go on to take part in political statements as well, and to help craft the Evangelicals and Catholics Together club, which would issue Statements regarding both theological and political matters.

It is no surprise that the drafters of the recent Manhattan Declaration were all very active in the Evangelicals and Catholics Together project. Their involvement with the mechanism of the Statement seems to be an attempt to present a more intellectually respectable version of the Religious Right to the Public Square. Every few years these fellows come up with a new Statement. 5 years from now, no one will remember the Manhattan Declaration. For those who did not sign it, forgetfulness will come in a matter of days or weeks. The Declaration will bring no changes in public policy, it will change no minds, it will do little more than preach to the choir. But solidifying the base is an integral part of politics today. It can be argued that the "prophetic" quality of the Declaration trumps all of these utilitarian concerns, and that is certainly the best argument for these things. Even when preaching to the choir it is a good thing to remind Christians that we may soon have to go to jail because of our beliefs. On that account, I do appreciate the Declaration's forthrightness and I think it is better written than some other Statements I have read, though it does read as committeespeak (not exactly Letter from Birmingham Jail here), and it does irritate me when neo-cons like George make reference to MLKJr. as precedent. Of course, Sider is among the first signers, which warms the heart of an ochlophobist who grew up American Baptist.

Is there virtue in reminding readers of the New York Times that intelligent contrarians still exist in the Public Square? I suppose there is always worth in public displays of intelligent contrarianism, even if the protocols for that sort of thing are so _______________ (fill in name of city) stilted.

My inclinations remain with Schmemann. These Statements will not in the slightest bring about a change in culture, and in a certain sense, they seem to affirm the current cultural order. I once wrote that a nation with this many manicured lawns necessitates abortion - Moloch demands to be paid for the entertainments he provides us. A neo-Cath/neo-con blogger who really gets behind these sorts of Statements chided me for that. Chuck Colson will push this Declaration on CCM radio stations and in Christianity Today, media committed to presenting Christianity in a glossy mimesis of pop America. Bobby George will go on defending American imperialism and the spiritual benefits of gratuitous consumption.

In the Preamble of the Declaration, for every modern instance mentioned in which Christians played a part in a social movement (abolition, suffrage, civil rights, etc.), one can find plenty of Christians who opposed those movements, and claimed to do so on the basis of theological principles. For the good hearted agnostic who is wondering whether or not Christians qua Christians should have a place in the Public Square, one can understand how it would seem to turn into a useless enterprise - for all these positions (abortion, marriage, etc.) you have persons claiming to be Christians who argue, on the basis of revelation and their own faith's praxis, for position x, and you have other Christians arguing for position y. As no Christian group in this country has, in theory, a moral authority deemed to be higher than that of any other group, it would seem all of these contrary religious authorities cancel each other out. For the moral voice of a faith to provide direction to law, that faith must be intrinsic to the culture. In a sense, those Evangelicals who argue that the Founders believed as today's Evangelicals believe intuit this notion, and when they, via vehicles such as the Christian Coalition, argue that most Americans default back to Evangelicalish moral positions, they at least "get" that there needs to be a consistent and coherent relationship between a faith and a culture in order for the faith to have the place to flex moral muscles. But, unfortunately for those Evangelicals, history does not bear their current witness, nor does the current religious mileu bear their demographic hopes. I would hold that for the the largest bulk of Americans, but not the majority, Evangelicalism provides the default emotional/nostalgic sense of religion, but for most of these it is not a moral guide in the sense these conservatives want it to be, nor is it in any real sense an authority.

Perhaps the most articulate and serious theory of how Christians could well operate within the American democratic order came from the Catholic John Courtney Murray. I wonder if this statement is a small sign that Murray's thesis, in the end, has been seen to fail. Murray's notion that there is a distinction to be made between the moral aspects of policy and the political feasibility of a given policy position, and the resulting (via Murray's disciples) determination that Christians can thus disagree on policy issues such as the legalization of the murder of unborn children may not have served us so well. Whatever the case, I have the sense that Christians of traditional moral bents do not really have a coherent view of how to rightly engage the democratic order, or how to rightly relate to it. There is in the drama of these Statements and Declarations something of an unstated intuition that we know we are going to lose. Then again, when considering the 20th century on a worldwide scale, the century that produced more Christian martyrs than any other, we perhaps ought to expect as much. Perhaps there is some good in overcoming American exceptionalism by making clear that we see that this is the direction that this nation is headed, and by stating, firmly, that in that event we know our right place is in the cells, or, if need be, the gallows.

With +Basil and +Job, two of our best signed the Declaration. They are two men who, I suppose few would doubt, are willing to be taken outside the gates for the sake of Christ. What is notable about this Declaration is that it so forthrightly draws the line in the sand and proclaims that the signers are willing to suffer for their commitment to truth. Yes, there is an element of display in this. But in modern memory, when certain types of changes have taken place in governmental orders, signers of statements like these have been 'taken care of.' Would that more bishops would sign.

Years ago, when I was involved with the more 'radical' wing of the pro-life movement, and after the RICO laws were passed, there was a call for persons in a state in life where it was prudent to make the commitment to continue the old tactics of shutting down death mills. Few did. Two of my friends from those days, brothers, remain in prison. I remember one of them saying to me that if the bishops (they were Catholic) would make a fervent, direct appeal, the jails would be so full of those who stood against state sanctioned murder that the state would not know what to do with them. When I think of Catholic Charities having to cease helping children, and the increasing amount of individuals and institutions in health care with their backs against the wall because of non-complicity with the abortion industry, I again wonder why Catholic and Orthodox bishops do not, simply, clearly, and fervently, admonish all those whose station in life prudently allows it to fill the prisons by way of non-violent civil disobedience. Those in prison could be visited and supported daily by those not in prison. What have we to lose?

It starts with the line Orthodoxy is a religion of memory, but conservative America (rightly reacting to statism) is dedicated to nostalgia, and it gets better from there. Read all of Fr. Jonathan's post here.

ephemeral thoughts

In light of recent conversations, I would like to make some disclaimers:

• As I have tried to make clear in recent threads, I have never encountered a leader of a 'high profile' ministry who is more open to criticism than John Maddex. The man welcomes it. He is a model of Christian charity, warmth, tenderness, and humility when he engages in conversation.
• Sometimes in human discourse there is the recognition that different persons come from different epistemological universes.
• AFR is a very public ministry. It is engaged in new media forms of communication. As such, it is going to be subject to public criticisms, including public criticisms via the new media. It is unreasonable to assert that every instance of criticism must be run by AFR (or whomever the ministry happens to be) before one places a criticism on some new media form. It is routine for Orthodox bloggers to write commentary concerning various Orthodox phenomena. Now, you may get the sense that much or all of that criticism is baseless. In that case, you are free to exercise your faculties of discernment and make a determination on the matter. After such a determination, you may decide to click to some other place in the pixel netherworld.
• In that light, here is the condensed version of Mortimer Adler's How to Read a Book: If you find there is a post with a really long thread, and you find that you open the thread up on your computer screen, you have three basic options. 1. Read all of the thread. 2. Read some of the thread, perhaps reading only those commenters whom you know and want to read, or perhaps skimming the thread and reading only those comments which happen to address those matters in which you have interest. 3. Read none of the thread. I assume, unless you are in Troy, MI, that no one has a gun to your head and you are free to read what you want. As a general rule of blogging, a reasonably intelligent reader will usually know in the first few lines of a comment whether or not he wants to continue to read it. If you do not want to read it, dear reader, you do not have to. If for some reason you feel left out because you do not have the time or interest to read a long thread, well, I am sorry for you.
• Some folks are keen to suggest that really long threads are inane in part because of the gross verbosity, abundance of ill-formed opinions, and so forth. My question to these folks is this - have you ever taken part in a group discussion in, say, a classroom or parish hall before? Every group or classroom discussion I have ever been a part of in which people shared their opinions on a given matter included a great deal of 'dross' - statements made which I felt were a waste of my time and which were misdirected, etc. This is a component of all group discussion. Then again, I am an ochlophobist. Nonetheless, God in His mercy sometimes allows meaningful observations to be made within the mire of group discussion. Wheat among the tares.
• Again let me state that it was not my intent to in any way suggest that Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon was, by putting forth his pastoral pondering, acting in a manner that is uncharitable, rude, inappropriate, or particularly unfair. Fr. Patrick and I sometimes disagree on some things. Perhaps we have strong disagreements on some matters. He does not seem to be a big fan of certain types of long blog threads, which is understandable. Aside from Dr. Tighe, Ken Myers, and those times Esolen praises the Welsh, I am not a big fan of Touchstone magazine. So far as I can tell, none of this is a sign that the sky is falling. I found Fr. Patrick's pastoral pondering well written and fruitfully provocative.
• I am frequently asked how it is that I have so much time to take part in long blog debates. Well, then. I am a man who can appreciate the art of suggestion. Those of us old veterans who took part in the now famous Pontifications wars know full well that these recent squabbles are but minor skirmishes, and to this day anything under 400 comments seems childsplay. But, to answer the question, I will tell you how a full time student and father of three small children has the time. Besides being able to blog while sitting in an easy class which requires little of my attention, as I am now doing, I am regularly an insomniac. I have been for most of my adult life. Further, at the moment I am on steroids for the useless lungs, and this means that I only get about 4 hours or so of sleep a night. After I finish my prayer rule of playing religious video games for 5 hours while wearing a Nike hair shirt, I sometimes engage in blog debates.
• An excellent and concise summary of the heart of the problem has been written by Neal Watson. Read it here. When I read his post it strikes me as correct - an insightful recognition of the issues at hand. But when I read it I also know that other Orthodox will read it and "see" nothing that Neal "sees." As a recent commenter here put it: I personally believe that all things should be Orthotized. While there may be variations with regard to the degree one is for or against such a posture, it does seem that we see here the increasing epistemological distancing we see throughout American culture - social, cultural, and ideological fragmentation that continues to expand (jmgregory articulated this point very well in the long thread). I can understand that, and it leads me to wonder about the future of Orthodox unity in America (here I do not speak of jurisdictional issues). It occurs to me that our current time may be the most unified time of American Orthodoxy, if we continue on a trajectory of increasing distancing of ideology and praxis.
• For many years now, observing this phenomenon among Evangelicals, Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox, I have been unable to understand how persons could express such admiration and intellectual dependence upon ChesterBelloc, Tolkien, and Lewis and at the same time defend practices which all four men would have held to be anathema and one of them would have deemed as a means of contribution to the abolition of man. When one thinks of what Lewis admired in Orthodoxy, it is the exact opposite of AncientFaith™ and Get To Know The Original™ and the like. With regard to looking for guidance from Orthodox thinkers, I am inclined to think that if a given practice vis-à-vis modernity is such that it would seem men as diverse in posture as Bl. Seraphim Rose, Fr. Alexander Schmemann, and Philip Sherrard would not have supported it, then it probably is not a good idea.
  

revelatory convergences

Snippets concerning ABC Rowan Williams' now widely discussed speech in Rome:

The archbishop, the most senior cleric in the Church of England, said that joint statements made by the Anglican and Catholic churches since the 1960s showed a “strong convergence” in ideas about what the Christian church is.

"....In what way does the prohibition against ordaining women so ‘enhance the life of communion’, reinforcing the essential character of filial and communal holiness as set out in Scripture and tradition and ecumenical agreement, that its breach would compromise the purposes of the Church as so defined?"

[Williams] concluded that the “ecumenical glass is genuinely half-full” and that the “unfinished business” between the two denominations is not “as fundamentally church-dividing as our Roman Catholic friends generally assume and maintain”.

Three things worthy of note:

• It seems that "ecumenical agreement" is a source of authority for the 'church' that is in the same general class of sources of authority that Scripture and tradition are in. Ecumenical agreement as form of revelation? I have always suspected those who conjure ecumenical agreements believed them to be a form of revelation. It is occasionally nice to have one's suspicions confirmed. But, yes, yes, yes, not all ecumenists are cut from the same cloth...
• "the 'unfinished business' between the two denominations is not 'as fundamentally church-dividing as our Roman Catholic friends generally assume and maintain.'" Replace the word 'denominations' with 'churches' and the phrase 'Roman Catholic friends' with 'Orthodox friends' and it would seem I have encountered this same logic elsewhere.
• But then again the logic is parsed through the lens of the ubiquitous incompetence of religion journalists. Williams is an erudite man, and thus, in a speech in which he states that between Anglicans and Catholics there is a '"strong convergence' in ideas about what the Christian church is", I especially doubt that he would refer to the Catholic Church as a denomination.

This has been making the rounds in Orthoblogdom of late (HT ByzTex and Fr. Gregory). Given recent conversations here....

If at some point in the next few years an Orthodox catalogue company offers an actual video game akin to this spoof (But with an Eastern twist, of course, like that seen in the John Climacus' Ladder of Divine Ascent Bible Board Game), and advertises it right next to the Orthocube, well, you've been warned.

an urgent request from Fr. Oliver Herbel....

Dear Readers of the Ochlophobist,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I have been reading the exchanges concerning "pop Orthodoxy," whether it exists, when it exists, should it exist, etc. I would like to take this opportunity to call us all to prayer. No, not because there is anything worthy of my status to do so. Not at all. I am asking for your prayers for a dear friend of ours, Resa Ellison. Resa and her sister Rachel attended SVS at the same time I did. Fr. James and Linda (their parents, as well as the parents of Sallie, Suzy, and Mary), allowed me to be a personal guest when researching early issues of /Svit/, in order to write my dissertation chapter on St. Alexis Toth. Fr. James gave me a hug after a course-changing event during my tenure within the Antiochian Archdiocese. They are that kind of family--loving, supportive, and prayerful. Resa has been hospitalized since November 9th; a serious bout with the H1N1 flu, led to a pneumonia. Her situation is now grave. Her family was already given the "she might not make it the next 24 hours" talk. It is hard for Lorie and I to imagine and I cannot even fathom what the family is going through. Resa is currently the choir director at St. Mary's Cathedral in Minneapolis; and it seems as though it were just a few days ago that we were emailing Resa about choir music because we were seeking her guidance and advice for our mission choir in Fargo. Please, please pray for her if you are not already. I know many of you are. To be blunt, we love her and I know she has family and friends that love her all the more. Her personality is as beautiful as her musical talent.

Please also pray for Sallie (Resa's sister) and her husband, Jim, concerning the recent loss of their newborn daughter, now the newly departed, Celia. The funeral was Monday. This unexpected loss has created a need for assistance in covering the costs of the unexpected funeral. You may help their family by contacting Fr. Gregory Owen at Holy Resurrection Orthodox Church in Hobart, Indiana. Many of you have helped us in Fargo and I cannot thank you enough. Indeed, I have more thank-you letters to send. Now, we must turn our hearts to the LaRocca family (Celia's family) and the Ellison family. Please send money to cover the cost of the funeral.

Lest all of this sound too dour, I must share this with you, from Fr. Andrew Morbey, describing some moments during the bedside vigil for Resa today:

". . . In came Sara Ann, Deacon Benjamin, Reader Alex all masked and nervous. Wonderful voices. We started off with the Angel Cried and then selected favourites from Pascha, the Canon of St Andrew, Presanctified, Beneath Thy Compassion, some other of Resa's favourites.
As much as could be remembered! And lo - up, up, up went the blood oxygen . . . down dropped the temperature . . ."

That is music we can all agree upon. If we cannot sing "The Angel Cried" with voices that can shake the earth, then we are most to be pitied.

Most Holy Theotokos, save us!

Fr. Oliver

---------------------------------------------

*a note from the ochlophobist: if I recall correctly the detail Fr. Oliver mentioned to me earlier, Resa also had a brother-in-law die in a car accident not too many years ago. The Ellison family has known a great measure of horrific tragedy. The Name of the God of Jacob protect them.

The new, happy, wind-up Ochlophobist™.

I found this in the email this afternoon:

November 22, 2009
Second Sunday of Advent

Father Pat's Pastoral Ponderings

Last week we reflected how the vice of a murmurer is multiplied---not simply added---when combined with the murmuring of others. We considered, by way of example, the joint rebellions of the Kohathites and Reubenites in Numbers 16. That instance, we recall, depended on the physical proximity of the Kohathites and Reubenites as these two groups were situated in the desert camp of Israel.

Let me suggest that physical proximity was necessary because neither group had very good internet access. If decent web connections had been available in the Sinai Desert, the Kohathites and Reubenites would doubtless have shared their complaints by means of blogging.

Fancy, for instance, that the Reubenites were nursing a complaint about something on Ancient Faith Radio. Let us suppose, for the sake of illustration, that Dathan (let's call him, one of the Reubenites) took issue with a sidebar notice, posted from an AFR listener, which said, "How may we pray without ceasing? By listening to Ancient Faith Radio!"

Reading that notice, Dathan might sensibly have reflected, "Well, I suppose the listener meant to say, 'I find AFR a big help in maintaining a spiritual, prayerful atmosphere in my home.'" Had Dathan rendered such an assessment of the listener's remark, I suspect he would have had a better than 99% chance of being correct.

Let us conjecture, nonetheless, that Dathan, feeling grouchy that day, determined to pursue the alternative option, the option with the 1% chance of probability. Perhaps he would post the following comment on his blog site: "That someone would say such a thing is one thing, but to endorse it, especially in a format that is associated with so many clergy in our Church, is rotten."

Now, let us further speculate that some other blogger (we leave him anonymous, perhaps because he is afraid of crowds) posted the whole business on his own blog page, later remarking, "The gushing is near constant on AFR. This comment was perfectly in keeping with other promotional comments made their [sic]."

Aha, self-promotion, the real message of Ancient Faith Radio.

You know, it would not surprise me if such a blog posting would receive more than fifty responses over the next few days.

What sorts of things would they say? Well, it would be amazing, actually, to those of us who had imagined Ancient Faith Radio to be a good ministry on behalf of the Orthodox Church. In our blindness, we now realize, we enthusiasts had been unduly impressed by the scores---and perhaps hundreds---of testimonies from those who largely credit AFR with their personal conversions to the Orthodox Faith. Alas, we had no idea what a "rotten" ministry AFR really is.

Reading those blog comments, we would learn the error of our ways. One of the bloggers, for instance, would have instructed us: "I don't know why anyone is seriously surprised that something like this would appear on AFR. Heck, from a marketing standpoint-the only standpoint which one can judge AFR without violating its self-understanding-it's a shame they didn't put that out there earlier." (This individual might blog several times, at one point mentioning his other pet peeve: the Touchstone editors.)

Within hours, another blogger would remark: "I try to listen to AFR to convince myself that my instinctual panic at finding something Orthodox so glossily packaged is not necessarily a good thing but the honey-voiced female saying 'Saint John Chrysostom on Ancient Faith Radio' makes me feel as if I've trailed mud in the parlour." Goodness, things at AFR are evidently far worse than we thought.

The tone of the readings on AFR would be a special target for critical barbs. Thus, we would be informed, "I deplore the manner of intonation and reading often done on AFR, in which the intoner or reader uses an affected, emotive vocal aesthetic. . . . I believe it does violence to the scriptures and the writings of the fathers for them to be read in such a manner."

See how these things can evolve? Ancient Faith Radio was, at first, simply "gushing." Now, AFR is "doing violence to the scriptures and the writings of the fathers." But things would get even worse, I'm afraid. One blogger would complain, "the main thing that bothers me is the classical guitar behind and around the affected readings."

Oh heavens, not just self-promotion, not just muddy floors, not just violence to the Scriptures, but---think of it---classical guitar!

Good thing they didn’t have the internet at Sinai. Might have led to murmuring.

---------------------------------------------

Well, then. I must repent.

Thus follows my canons of repentance:

• If a ministry brings in several hundred converts, then no aspect of that ministry should be criticized. When questions arise that seem to suggest that there is a tension between a compulsion to bring people in and/or comfort those brought in, and the content of the faith being presented, we should reframe the questions in a way that makes issues of evangelism utility the only questions considered when considering how Orthodoxy is to be presented at large.
• I read Margaret's post on AFR and smiley Christianity again and upon further reflection it is not sober at all. Sobriety is rather the sort of sermon I heard so frequently in my Baptist youth - the people who disagree with me about religious matters are like the bad Israelites.
• Speaking of my own religious past, I should have learned then that people who, when they pray, or when they read Christian texts, use that saccharine, prozacianly happy, affected and emotive "spiritual" voice are simply using the voice that Jesus used. The voice he learned from the Father. The true sheep know this voice, and respond to it, much like folks respond to the smell of hash browns at MacDonald's when they walk by in the morning. I forgot the revelation that God has revealed to his true people - white middle class socially conservative Republican Americans who have found the true church, in this expression, AncientFaith™ - that a true "spiritual, prayerful atmosphere" is discerned by what makes me feel spiritual and prayerful when I listen to it. Warm fuzzy voices make me feel spiritual. Barber's Adagio for Strings as background music to sacred texts makes me feel prayerful, because, like, when they used that adagio in the movie Platoon it really helped me to realize how profound Vietnam war deaths were, and prayer is, like, even more profound than a Vietnam movie. I have been so bad ochlophobist grouchy wrong - I need to simply turn on AFR, go to the icon corner, hug myself while in a fetal position, and let the happy-pill like movement of the Spirit wash over me until I too speak in a manner that conveys that Jesus died to make us chipper.
• Going further into my past, I should have listened to this sermon the first time I heard it. Indeed, I heard this same sermon from an Evangelical pastor decrying the pettiness of the 'worship wars' in the 90s, following the same logic - powerpoint sermons and trendy jazz style praise bands and the coffee shop in the foyer brought folks to Christ, and how dare we question that? We have been sidetracked from our great task and caught up in the banality of utter pettiness - what does the difference between singing Shine, Jesus, Shine and O Sacred Head Now Wounded matter when there are numbers, I mean souls, at stake? And did I mention that the specialists/technicians out of Fuller Theological Seminary have developed proven market saturation growth methods which are guaranteed to reach 341.6 persons (+/- 6.8 persons) every 9.2 seconds? No, I didn't mention that, because I was being dyspeptic. Had I not been behaving dyspeptically, and had I fostered more of a spiritual, prayerful atmosphere in my home, perhaps I would discerned the obvious - that to do "incarnational" Christianity in America, there has to be a sales pitch, and the forms we take, down to the voices we use, the logo, and the catch phrases, and the ambiance background music, and the billboards, etc., all these have to speak the language of the American heart - sales - in order to reach Americans for Jesus. For if the manner used does not in some manner follow the fundamental American intuition - that all or most of life is about consumption - then how can we ever expect to reach Americans with the value-added saving message of AncientFaith™? Further, ministries must go to great lengths to self-promote, and to very frequently remind users of how very, very important the ministry is - this again is the language of Americans - anything worth doing is worth endlessly promoting, and if it is not endlessly promoted and presented as virtually essential to, say, an American Orthodox life, then it must not be worth doing, following the American logic. We have to follow this logic to fulfill Manifest Destiny, which is to morph American Evangelical Christianity into a moderately Byzantinish American AncientFaith™. Not too distinctively Byzantinish, mind you, because that would reflect the endemic anti-Western ignorant hatred that THE ORTHODOX THEOLOGIAN David B. Hart has forever rhetorically obliterated and any hint of which should be subject to immediate dismissal.
• I was wrong to ask those who criticized the criticism for a substantial defense of given methods and particular manners used in expressing Orthodoxy in public, because to ask for this is to mean that I do not want people to convert to Orthodoxy. Obviously, to ask questions, to criticize certain particular aspects of larger efforts, must mean that one believes that the Church should do nothing to present itself in public and say nothing about itself in public. Yes, I now know that we have only two options - either we accept full bore all that is done now in the name of Orthodox evangelism, or we do nothing, build some churches without signs out front, and wait for folks to show up. I somehow missed the logical inference here, that to criticize the former must have meant that I held to the latter. Now, I reject the latter and hold only to the former.
• Dear friends, what matters is that we grow, that we reach people, that our numbers continue to increase at rates that will occasionally get mentioned in Christianity Today by someone other than Dr. Bradley Nassif. Well, growth matters so long as we do not give up our core principles (i.e.: mere Christianity; complementarian marriages; Dobson politics; a sellable, relevant Orthodoxy comfortable to former Evangelicals and Anglicans; liturgical creativity; anti-antiWesternism & veneration of THE ORTHODOX THEOLOGIAN David B. Hart; +Anastasios of Albania can do no wrong as he has showed us the perfect blend of Orthodoxy: ecumenist, anti-nationalist, Fuller style missions - we just won't talk about the mess he left in Africa; and an aversion to monasticism except that we like to sell t-shirts with sayings of monks on them and we like to wear the occasional prayer rope, as the AncientFaith™ version of the WWJD bracelet; etc.). But fortunately our growth principles can be slicked up real well, like the sexy picture of the girl in the tight skirt before the article on the importance of chastity in Salvo magazine. I have learned that people who criticize any aspect of the new American Orthodoxy probably own icons of St. Mark of Ephesus. Friends, we cannot have that.
• Instead we should meditate on what warms our hearts. To show my repentance for hosting a forum in which someone dared to speak a critical word regarding the elevator music piety of classical guitar ambiance music streamed behind the emotively pronounced syllables of a saint's sentences, I offer to you an image that speaks to me of the love of the American Christ - Happy the Guitarist wind-up clown. Because what we need, friends, is a happy Orthodoxy, maybe even one where we all have a choreographed, moderately lengthed laugh, like in humor scenes in the Left Behind movies. Here he is folks - Happy the Guitarist wind-up clown on The Ochlophobist Blog™.

northern light...

Fr. Oliver Herbel, who has been mentioned on this blog once or twice, has started a regular column at the SOCHA site. It is called Frontier Orthodoxy. Read it here.

Fr. Oliver writes:

I am a product of the modern Upper Midwest. I was born in Minot, North Dakota. I have lived in Niche, ND, Bowbells, ND, and Lemmon, SD. I visited my maternal grandparents’ dairy farm near Fertile, MN, a few times every year as I grew up. I was raised to hunt and fish. I was raised believing that honesty is a virtue that should never be in short supply—that if one has nothing to hide, one has nothing of which to be ashamed. I was raised never to take family for granted, even when they cause you headaches, and I was raised to work hard, harder, and harder still. “Quit” should never be in one’s vocabulary. Oh, and don’t forget, “boys don’t cry.”

...if one wants to be in the Ark, the Church of Christ propagated through the Apostles, one has to enter the Holy Orthodox Church and put up with the breath taking stench. The other option doesn’t stink, of course, but a rotten smell still beats lungs full of water.

--------------------------------------------------

A brief ochlophobic cultural tangent:

The Dakotas and northern Minnesota are the home of 9-man football (your Ochlophobist expresses his love for the 6-man and 8-man games here), which, as I am sure you are aware, produces a higher caliber of young man than many other sports. I think you can find some 8-man in SD as well, but it seems 9-man is the more common game in the upper Midwest.

Brighid and Fergus. Our friends the Lockerbys are here in Memphis this weekend. I will give an update on Fergus later, your continued prayers are greatly appreciated.

Home baked Ukrainian style all rye bread from Esther's kitchen, with liverwurst, sauerkraut, and cheese. And medicinal beer, to help offset the effects of my asthma fighting steroids a wee bit. Pleasant enough for the last day of meat until Nativity (for those of us on the Pope's calendar). And it is meet and right to eat like a Midwesterner when watching Ohio State football.

Daniel Greeson has taken Paideia to blogdom. Note his post which gives the text to the lecture given by Fr. John Behr at House Springs, during the Chrysostom Anniversary Conference. I was fortunate to attend the event. The lecture is well worth reading.

another average joe american encounters Orthodoxy on the street and, well....

Alexios Marakis, a Greek Orthodox priest visiting the U.S., got lost in Tampa and tried to stop and ask directions from Marine reservist Jasen D. Bruce. But instead of offering help, “Bruce struck the priest on the head with a tire iron.” The reservist believed Marakis, who spoke limited English, was an Arab terrorist. Bruce chased the priest for three blocks, “and even called 911 to say that an Arabic man tried to rob him.” According to a news release:

“During the chase, the suspect called 911 and claimed an Arabic male attempted to rob him and he was going to take him into custody,” a Tampa Police Department news release states. “When officers arrived, the suspect claimed the man was a terrorist.”

Police arrested Bruce for “aggravated battery with a deadly weapon” and are investigating whether he committed a hate crime.

- from here. Read the full St. Petersburg Times article here, where you will learn that this grunt never served in Iraq or Afghanistan, works at an APS Pharmacy, touts the benefits of taking testosterone and human growth hormones on his blog, and has a prior arrest for violent rage. The event happened on Monday. At the Times site you will also read this:

An exterior surveillance video of Tuesday's chase captured the two men in motion, said Tampa Police Department spokeswoman Laura McElroy:

"You see a very short, small man running, and an enormous, large muscular man chasing after him."

HT to catholicanarchy.org, where we are rightly reminded that for our imperialists, "a war without u.s. casualties is often regarded on some level as an unsuccessful war."

Grant it, this fellow was a juiced up madman, but this story is one of images and their too commonly supposed meanings isn't it? What a cathartic delusion our culture propagates - to smugly disdain those Islamic cultures which breed violent sacrifices, without any sense whatsoever of the true nature of the sacrifices our culture demands, in return for the most toys ever given to a cultural order by the spirit of the air - couching the fodder which feeds the demons of the rich in the language of modern hero-sanctity, all while the cult which keeps more fodder coming remains secure in its hematic pursuits.

What an image, the big American Marine chasing down the little monk in a rage. If only that sort of image did not carry with it the sense of fulfilling the fetishes of a generation of video game addicts. If only it were not an image essentially repeated on the other side of the world over and over again.

An instance to remember a sane secession:

From the union of self-gratification and self-annihilation,
secede into care for one another
and for the good gifts of Heaven and Earth.

God protect Fr. Alexios during his stay in a dangerous land.

To Joshua Ford at SVS:

If I ever had it I could not find your email hence this post. Thank you. You have done me a great kindness by connecting me with my old friend and mentor. I had been trying to find him, but could not get any info post-Bethel. My thoughts had been on him a great deal in the past year or so, and it is a blessing to have been found by him. I am in your debt.

At the doctor again today (my lungs are worthless), this time with Georgia Ruth (11 months old), also sick.

My doctor's office is an interesting place. It was started by a Memphis charity, the Church Health Center, but then somehow got taken over by the UT Medical Center, which is not as bad as the antichrist. In either event it was not our choice - we followed our pediatrician there when the clinic was first started some years ago, and we picked her before that because she is one of the most midwife/homebirth friendly doctors in town. She used to be at a clinic in South Memphis in a happily questionable neighborhood. It was alright. Then she moved to Harbor Town on Mud Island, which is one of those Disneyland-mode new urbanist projects. The doctor's office was created when folks still believed or feigned to believe that some degree of socio-economic diversity would be realized in and around this new urbanist 'community,' but like all new urbanist neighborhoods, it started as and continues to be a bourgeois haven.

It's a funny thing for us to go there. I used to park my beat-up old Toyota Tacoma between a Lexus and a BMW, but today I took the rusty 1993 mini-van we bought from my wife's grandmother for $150 and parked it between a Mercedes and a Mini-Cooper. Today, like always, I shared the waiting room with sick yuppies. I think that is part of the pleasure for me. I like to watch sick yuppies. Their whole paradigm is in discord upon entering an ill state.

Our doctor brought some of her old staff with her to the new place, and it seems that all but the occasional front desk lady (the one today happened to be great) are our sort of people. The nurse practitioner and our doctor are not much for pill pushing, and other than disagreeing over vaccinations (at this point we pretty much have them trained with regard to where that conversation goes with us), I like their approach to medicine. Joy usually goes more than I do, so when I go the nurse who always takes me back and introduces me to any new staff or folks I hadn't met before by telling them all - "this is Winnie's dad." Winifred makes quite an impression at doctor's offices. It's not as fun or as cute when you are the parent. And today, since G.R. was with, everyone had to come out and decide how much she looks like Winnie or Bridie. They all decided that she looks like me.

I used to wonder why it was they seemed so interested in my kids, but today it dawned on me - it's mostly human beings that work in the place, and for all I know, mine are the only regular human children who come through, the children of the bourgeoisie, of course, being partially machine, or cyborgs, or whatever the technical term for them is. Today G.R. was in a mismatched, multiply stained outfit, handed down about 5 times, and I later noticed some interesting things were stuck in her hair. She was held by about 4 staff members by the time we got to our room. Some toddler in a perfect little Izod shirt came out of a room on our way down, but I don't think anyone noticed. He had his hair done in that floppy manner that young Southern middle to upper class white men go for, and which Southern mothers sometimes subject their boys to - speaking of which, I do not comment much about college football on this blog, though long time readers know that Woody Hayes is venerated as a saint in my native religious tradition. In any event, I watched a couple of Ole Miss games this year, and their quarterback, I noticed, not only has the typical young Southern white male floppy haircut, but somehow, in complete violation of the laws of nature (perhaps it is just a transhumanist technology the science of which I am not familiar with), he manages to keep his floppy hair in perfect flop, without a hair misplaced, throughout the entire game, even though he takes his helmet off and puts it on again between each series. How is that possible? NCAA Division I helmets are custom fit, and fairly tight. He has achieved an astounding feat - his hair looks pristinely casual - just flopped down, hanging there. But in order to not move a hair (they show close ups folks), he must be wearing 8 cans worth of sweat resistant hair spray. His hair must have been hard as steel when they pressed the foam on his head to get the custom fitting for his helmet. Perhaps if he had just shaved his head and spent less time dedicated to the great Southern flop head project Old Miss would have won more games this year.

The coffee shop on Mud Island is expensive, and horrible. But we all know that a new urbanist coffee would seem like a great idea in a book, but end up pretty awful once financed and built.

It is nice to see the river though. Since I ceased working I hardly ever see it anymore.

I'm not really sure that there is a point to this post - there's a slightly reduced amount of oxygen in my blood, that's my excuse.

contra smiley Christianity...

It is good to see Margaret from Edinburgh back to blogging again. She is a gem within Orthoblogdom.

Her most recent post touches upon aesthetic issues raised here of late. Her prose is a delight to read. And she captures the problem, generally speaking, with superb poise and insight.

She begins:

It was a real bookshop. A real bookshop is one that only sells books and apart from some Sunday school materials and the church magazine this one only did sell books. It was not what you’d call decorated, painted yes, and clean (apart from some dust around the secondhand seventeenth century divines) but lacking in nice veneers and soothing magnolia tints. But it sold books and plenty of them. It had a tea-room too which was very unusual for these days with tapioca pudding on the menu on Monday and Wednesday and crowded with old ladies in serviceable hats and sensible shoes lured by cheapness and churchiness. I am sure the old ladies never bought any books, perhaps a copy of ‘Life and Work’ on their way out but the shelves of William Barclay (the man who never had an unpublished thought), John Owen, Robert Lewis Dabney, J C Ryle, John Bunyan and collections of cloth-bound sermons by A W Pink were undisturbed. Then it changed. It became brighter, breezier and pastel-hued. The number of books went down and the number of non-Presbyterian/protestant books went up, videos and cassettes appeared in quantity as did magazines and a good proportion of the books that were left were soft theology, comfy reads, self-help and Christianity-lite. Or as my friend Jean used to say, “lo-alcohol religion with nothing to gladden the heart” just more world-weary tripe about how to be successful. The craggy, dour, dog-collared old chaps who had once graced journal covers (frightening you off sin for a month) and whose lectures and sermons were advertised disappeared to be replaced by cheerful young men and women with carefully coiffed casualness back in the day when an unbuttoned shirt collar was heart-flutteringly trendy and occasionally in those oh-so daring blue jeans. I got tired of those faces very quickly with their perfect skin and de rigueur cheerfulness, that certain sort of girl-next-door, wholesome Christian cheerfulness that makes me feel jaded and avoidant. I started going to the Catholic bookshop....

Read the rest here.

Her beginning lines warmly remind me of the mantra of my former employer Dr. Thomas Loome, who for many years ran a real bookshop.

Franky on acid.....

There are some rules to keep in mind when reading Frank Schaeffer. First, he knows everyone in any way associated with the religious right, a movement which would never have existed were it not for him. Second, he and no one else really, understands the religious right. Third, those who disagree with whatever his views now happen to be are insane, and probably want to kill small children who speak languages other than King James English. Fourth, he is an artist, really, it's art, he used to paint pictures much like Rouault, really, and his writing is art, not whining. Fifth, his views on Orthodoxy reflect whatever his political views happen to be this year. Sixth, he had sex with his wife before he was married, which has been made clear in about half of his books (fiction and non-fiction), and this was, like, really important somehow. Seventh, he has been on TV a lot, and did some movies, and has met a lot of famous screen people, which is important, because to have your hand on the pulse of the nation, you have to appear on TV from time to time.

This essay of his on Left Behindism ain't all bad - I think he mostly gets the cult of presumed cultural victimhood on the part of Evangelicals of the last generation right. It starts out well enough:

Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye’s Left Behind series of sixteen novels (so far!) represents everything that is most deranged about religion. If I had to choose companions to take my chances with in a lifeboat, and the choice boiled down to picking Tim LaHaye, Jerry Jenkins, or Christopher Hitchens, I’d pick Hitchens in a heartbeat. At least he wouldn’t try to sink our boat so that Jesus would come back sooner. He might even bring along a case of wine.

Now one can sympathize with this sentiment, but it does reveal Schaeffer's poor analytical skills. If you get stuck in a lifeboat with a case of wine and Christopher Hitchens, there isn't a chance in hell that you would get your hands on any of that wine. Hitchens would abandon ship with case in hand if need be. Further, LaHaye and Jenkins have a lot of people who might actually bother to actively look for them in such a situation.

Schaeffer's political diatribes would be forgettable enough were he not so keen on dragging his offbrand version of liberal northeastern worst side of GOArch into them:

...This End Times death wish is built on a literalist interpretation of the Book of Revelation. Too bad.

This weird book was the last to be included in the New Testament. It was included as canonical only relatively late in the process after a heated dispute. The historic Churches East and West remain so suspicious of Revelation that to this day it has never been included as part of the cyclical public readings of scripture in Orthodox services. The book of Revelation is read in Roman and Anglican Churches only during Advent. But both Rome and the East were highly suspicious of the book. The West included the book in the lectionary late and sparingly. In other words, the book of the Bible that the historical Church found most problematic is the one that American evangelicals latched on to like flies on you know what.

Given that Revelation is now being hyped as the literal—even desired—roadmap to Armageddon, it’s worth pausing to note that it’s nothing more than a bizarre pastoral letter that was addressed to seven specific churches in Asia at the end of the first century by someone (maybe John or maybe not) who appears to have been far from well when he wrote it. In any case, the letter was not intended for use outside of its liturgical context, not to mention that it reads like Jesus on acid.

Suspicious? Least read in church = most problematic? Nothing more than a bizarre pastoral letter? Jesus on acid? Thanks for the insight Franky. Methinks there may have been other hermeneutic possibilities we could have contrasted literalism with, even for mass consumption. Fervent seriousness about how important it is that we not take our religion seriously. That'll help things. Perhaps, just perhaps, the danger of the influence of the rapturists with regard to American foreign policy and other matters might have to do with the fact that the theology is wrong, and that it is a theology which seems to thrive on an emotional and ideological manipulation of sorts, and not so much that it is fervently held to and considered serious and worth commitment by those who believe in it.

mmm, no.

I have made it a point not to bring this subject up in a while, but this post from The Season of Another Book is worth mention. It begins:

Usually, I think that beating up on Ancient Faith Radio is too easy, sometimes unfair and often unhelpful*, but this is disgusting:

How may we pray without ceasing? By listening to Ancient Faith Radio!

That was a "listener" quote on the sidebar. I came across it here, but I do not know if they rotate their sidebars or not. The context doesn't help.

That someone would say such a thing is one thing, but to endorse it, especially in a format that is associated with so many clergy in our Church, is rotten. This is the American commercialization of faith: Listen to this music, this radio program, watch this movie, buy this t-shirt… then you're doing Christian work!

I am sorry, but: Listening to AFR is not prayer; Listening to Church music on CD is not prayer; Having an icon on your dashboard is not prayer; Wearing a prayer rope is not prayer. Your accessories are not your religion...

He would have been 101 later this month. To think of the considerable number of intellectual heavyweights who were influenced by his work and reposed before he did. Students of structuralism and anthropology have read his work, but even if you have not, chances are your thinking has in some fashion been influenced by him and/or his disciples and detractors in some manner. Claude Lévi-Strauss, 28 November 1908 - 1 November 2009. Were I coy, I might say that the man saw the beginning and the end of the modern social sciences, and had something to do with both.

From an affluent Jewish family in France, he was the last of the grand Marxist intellectuals; three wives, two sons, one of them a big shot at the UN. I was pleased to learn that Levi-Strauss was also a skilled handyman, loved music and believed in the virtues of manual labor and outdoor life. He did refer to Marxism, psychoanalysis and geology as his “three mistresses” in life. Lévi-Strauss believed that the human species would become extinct, in spite of the considerable amount of time it took him to make his personal contribution to that process.

deaconesses postscript

To follow up on my last post, two further points:

Dr. Tighe reminded me of Fitzgerald's dismissal of Martimort's book in her essay in the Hopko book on WO, "declaring it to be vitiated by its 'Western mindset,' without so much as once alluding to, let alone controverting, its argumentation." Unfortunate.

Lastly, I wrote in March a brief mention of a book that I think is critical in terms of understanding the history of WO. I will repeat here what I wrote then:

...Radical Spirits: Spiritualism and Women's Rights in Nineteenth-Century America by Ann Braude. I wrote a review of this book some years ago and will perhaps post that in the future. In brief, this book, by a self-professed feminist who is a competent historian, outlines the relationship between the involvement of women in the spiritualist movement and the implication of this upon the introduction of new roles for women in politics, economics, and mainstream religion. Braude documents the fact that prior to the American spiritualist movement born in upstate New York just after the Civil War, there was no such thing in the modern West as public female religious speakers and leaders. Spiritualism changed that, and in short order the domino effect of women taking speaking and leadership roles in various Christian denominations followed. Why would spiritualism have had so great an effect? Read the book. The vast majority of Americans in the post Civil War generation participated in some form of spiritualist activity, especially in the north, midwest, and west -- indeed, Braude's description of the popular psychology of loss on the part of mothers of dead war sons and war widows, and the relationship between this and the hugely popular forms of necromancy (which she, again, well documents) is a disturbing phenomenon of which you, dear reader, might be well served to familiarize yourself with. It seems that the post Civil War United States was in many respects a necromantic occultist free-for-all, and we might well ask how this state of affairs influenced the American forms of religion that manifested themselves in the 20th century. Furthermore, this book has huge implications with regard to the question of women's ordination. Braude makes clear that religious feminists owe a huge debt to the spiritualist movement, and that without the speedy and dramatic cultural shifts that it brought about with regard to women's religious roles, it is hard to conceive of the movements for women's ordinations in the manner we have seen in the last 135 years or so. Every female Christian pastor and priest in America today is, undoubtedly, a cultural product of the spiritualist movement. Braude applauds this. I applaud Braude's work, though my appreciation of her conclusions is quite different than her own.

It is at least worth considering the fact that the history of WO is so directly tied to occult practices that were quite contrary to Christian belief. It is interesting to note that various folk Catholic and folk Orthodox and even folk Protestant practices, often called pagan or occult, etc., by detractors, often involved women in roles of spiritual power and authority, and existed for century after century, but did not create a movement which demanded that women be placed in sacerdotal or hierarchical office in the Church. This does not mean that the movement should be dismissed solely on the grounds of its history, as there are aspects of modernity which came from decidedly outside of the Church but which we might recognize as goods, but as sometimes folks, the apple don't fall far from the tree, it is worth comparing trees and apples.

McGuckin on deaconesses; an ochlophobic response....

In the ancient church, and up until the twelfth century, the priestly order of diaconate was accessible to women. They too were ordained at the altar, during the sacred liturgy, with the laying on of hands by the bishop, and thereafter stood vested in their sacred dalmatics and stoles, for the celebration of the eucharistic liturgy with the other clergy. The form of the ordination prayer for female deacons, and the placing of it within the eucharistic liturgy around the altar itself, are clear signs that we are speaking here of a sacred ordination (cheirotenia) not a mere blessing (cheirothesia) as some writers have argued²²´. The female deaconate was distinguished from the male deaconate only in that the women deacons did not administer the eucharistic gifts publicly, although they themselves received the gifts along with the other deacons around the altar of the church. They were also required to be celibates²³°. The liturgical witness of women deacons was a great blessing for the church which after the twelfth century (much earlier in the Western Church) faded away. Some have said that this was a providential development. It is hard to see their justification for so surprising a conclusion considering that the ordination ritual for women deacons still exists in the sacred liturgical books of the church, thus clearly testifying to its status as an integral part of Orthodox tradition; and the abolition of the office came about as a result of the increasing social collapse that affected the Byzantine world after the rise of Islam. It came about, therefore, as a result of the oppressive damage being done to the Christian movement in the wider culture of the medieval East, not as a positive response based on Christian developments. It also has to be confessed that the attitude of the predominantly male monastic movement after the fourth century was hostile to the concept of the deaconess. After the sixth century, when the bishops themselves were co-opted into the celibate ranks of the ascetics, the phenomenon, still seen in the fourth-century golden age of the Fathers, where deaconesses could even be members of the bishops own family²³¹, became more and more a mere memory. Monastics, who themselves were at first not a regular part of the local church organization (living in the wilderness far away from the metropolitan church) soon came to dominate the ranks of the clergy, and thereafter pressed for the appointment of more and more celibate clerics by preference.

Monastic pressures first exiled the deaconesses from smaller village churches, and finally from the larger city cathedrals, where even into the Middle Ages aristocratic and powerful Christian women, could still be found gracing the ranks of the major clergy. Recently the Church of Greece decided synodically to allow each of the bishops the option of blessing ascetic female 'deaconesses' to serve in the convents, and to offer the already consecrated eucharistic gifts to ascetic communities which did not have the benefit of clergy. It was a development noted with wide interest, though the synod made it abundantly clear that this was not an ordination (cheirotenia) they were engaged in, but a cheirothesia. For a 'deaconess' to be appointed in this way, of course, would be the equivalent of the elevation of a new form of minor order designated for women. However significant this movement is, therefore, it has not yet addressed the issue of whether, and how, the ordination of female deacons could be reinstated within the Orthodox Church, and so it is difficult to see, at the present, whether this initiative will be a positive one, or a side-stepping of important questions (the invention of the role of 'neo-deaconesses' considered as a blessing for female monastics). It is a question of high importance at a time in Orthodoxy when women's education has brought them to the very forefront of societal life in a manner that once more raises new potentialities for a reinvigoration of the forms of women's ministry within the church, and accordingly will have to be seriously discussed among all levels of the faithful, until a new synodical consensus can be established.

In the Western Church the councils of Epaon (517) and Orléans (533) specifically ruled to abolish the female diaconate, though it survived elsewhere among Latin Christians until the eleventh century. There was no formal synodical rejection of the ministry in the East and there is no impediment, theoretically speaking, to the restoration of this ancient order if (as many Orthodox now think) it could serve an important role in the future for women disciples exercising the specific functions of ordained clergy. In ancient times the male and female deacons supplied different functions within the church, though the ministry of both is specifically characterized by their 'availability' of service to the larger community. In antiquity this was clearly marked by the way the male deacons administered the social welfare of the community, as well as the leading of the public prayers in the nave, and the regular assistance in the distribution of the gifts. Female deacons took special care for the education of women in the church, and assisted at their baptisms, and took predominant charge of the visitation of sick women in their homes, and the distribution of the gifts to them, privately.

²²´ - The claim of some Orthodox theologians that female diaconate was not an ordination has been highly coloured by the desire to argue (in the aftermath of the ordination of women in the Anglican Church) that women can never be admitted to the 'priesthood'. It has never been known in the history of Orthodoxy that women have been ordained as presbyters or bishops, but the refusal to admit the clear historical and theological evidence of their ordination as deacons (and thus their admittance to the order of priesthood at the level of diaconate) seems a problematic emblem of how historical custom (the rejection of women from the ranks of clergy in a society that had lost a sense of their importance in the church) may sometimes overshadow the demands of sacred tradition. For evidence that female diaconate was an 'ordination' in the strict sense see Theodorou 1989; Fitzgerald 1988; Eutychiadis 2004.

²³° - Apostolic Constitutions, 6.17; Council of Chalcedon, canon 15; See also novel 6 of the civil law of Justinian.

²³¹ - St Gregory of Nyssa's wife served as a deaconess; so too did the close friend of St John Chrysostom, Olympias.

- Fr. John Anthony McGuckin, The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to its History, Doctrine, and Spiritual Culture. Blackwell,2008. Pgs 326-327.

In response to this passage, I would like to first offer some reservations, and then offer some 'supporting' thoughts with regard to the thesis Fr. John gives us here. It goes without saying that Fr. John is a considerable historian and a wonderful poet and prose writer as well; his work should be taken seriously.

• Is there any icon, or mention of an icon, or evidence that there may have been an icon, in which a deaconess was depicted wearing liturgical vesture? If there is not, is there any reason to believe that this is due to some sort of misogynist iconoclasm? If no is the answer to both questions, what does it mean to state that the ordination of women as deaconesses is an "integral part of Orthodox tradition" if there is no iconographic tradition and witness to support as much?
• I am not a professional historian. I have followed the issue of women's ordination (henceforth WO) within Orthodoxy for some time. It used to be that those arguing for WO to the priesthood argued matter-of-factly citing various historical points. Today, following the foremost Orthodox feminist theologian Valerie Karras, some WO advocates have abandoned that rhetorical route. Of the three sources Fr. John cites in his footnote, I have only read Fitzgerald, though I have read about the work of the Greeks in question. I have read the main address given to the Synod in Greece right before they voted to allow for non-ordained women deaconesses in monastic settings, and that centered much more around out of date social science than it did historical matters. My reservation here is this - we have had a number of folks argue in the past for WO to the priesthood on the basis of 'the latest' historical data. That presentation of the data turned out to be wrong. One must be very careful using history, especially when dealing with areas where there are relatively few sources, when making an argument for a change in praxis.
• Further, following this line of thought, I am not as confident that we can take certain aspects of the data and assume so confidently that these ordinations of deaconesses were cheirotenia and not cheirothesia. The ritual form for the ordination is significant (if our interpretation of that data is assuredly correct), but I am not convinced that this requires us to believe that an ontological egality in the ordination was believed to be there by those who performed these rituals. We use the same term (with a change in gender) for priests and priest's wives, but they have very different roles. That there is a similar ordination rite for female and male deacons takes matters a step further, but it does not require an understanding of ontological sameness with regard to the nature of the order or orders in question. The fact that male and female deacons played such different roles seems quite significant. Then again, the fact that they both communed at the altar is also quite significant a point. I remain agnostic on the question (which is to say Fr. John has not yet convinced me) - but I will say this, in Orthodoxy a distinction between a state of cheirotenia and cheirothesia is not going to be as neatly defined a conceptual boundary as one finds in the later West. In typical Orthodox fashion, the praxis seems to be fully defined, but the meaning behind the praxis seems rather undefined. That is a common feature of Orthodoxy that many of us love. Some determine this lack of definition to correspond to an openness of sorts, others see it as an aversion to the banality of constant definition. I like both postures.
• The line about "the predominantly male monastic movement after the fourth century" is somewhat question begging. Was the Life of St. Macrina something of a last hurrah for a long while? I don't know. If we follow Fr. John's line of thought, it would seem that monasticism is the institution that has both protected the image of the dignity of women in the Church (insofar as the deaconess in ancient times was celibate, and the implied reference to the desert mothers and other female monastic traditions prior to the more masculine direction post-fourth century), and the institution which has hindered that image. In any event, I do not think Fr. John is trying to suggest an antagonism regarding this issue that cleanly breaks down along monastic vs. 'cathedral' lines. One might also note that post Islam Greek Orthodoxy was not the only player. The Russians seem to also have a few instances of deaconesses, which mostly die out around the same time. And though initially Fr. John suggests that deaconesses lasted in the East much longer than in the West, the dates he give state a death of the tradition in the 11th century in the West, and "after" the 12th century in the East, which seems to suggest that the tradition of deaconesses died out at roughly the same time throughout Christendom. Islam and the perversions of Christian culture and praxis that came out of the encounter with Islam cannot be blamed for all of that. A loss of Byzantine cosmopolitanism could, I suppose, as Byzantine cosmopolitanism had a long-lasting and far reach into Rus and a fair amount of the West, however mitigated its reach was.
• I grant Fr. John that some of the arguments against the notion of deaconesses having been ordained instead of merely blessed are ideologically driven because of Anglican and other ideological warzones. But I also think we might keep in mind that there has been and will be a considerable amount of ideological pressure toward WO that might also influence our thought. A passage such as: It is a question of high importance at a time in Orthodoxy when women's education has brought them to the very forefront of societal life in a manner that once more raises new potentialities for a reinvigoration of the forms of women's ministry within the church, and accordingly will have to be seriously discussed among all levels of the faithful, until a new synodical consensus can be established. - suggests a necessary progression here, as if a new synodical consensus, different from the consensus of the last 600 or so years, must be found. Here I might question this statement that there are 'many' within Orthodoxy asking questions about or clamouring for WO (even just to the diaconate). There are many in certain circles within Orthodoxy in the West. There are a few such folks in Greece, a few in Romania, there is Finland (that goes without saying), and so forth, but I think it safe to say that the vast majority of bishops, and the vast majority of actively faithful Orthodox Christians consider this a closed question. This is not to suggest that the vast majority would have a strong opinion against deaconesses, only to state my opinion that for most Orthodox the question is not being asked and the answer not demanded. It is fair to suggest that some of the aversion to the mere question of deaconesses might be ideologically driven, but it is just as fair to ask if those persons for whom this issue is of "high importance" have been influenced by popular and common ideological factors which stem from the culture at large as well as the movements for WO in other Christian bodies.
• Indeed, as I have written here before, I am inclined to believe that at this time it is virtually impossible to approach the issue of WO, even with regard to deaconesses alone, without the influence of ideology at hand. Those against it are often too quick to grab some pop natural law or 'conservative' 'Biblical' criticism that has nothing to do with normative Orthodox theological schemas, those for it tend toward social science arguments and historicism, and so on and so forth - both sides bringing agendas into Orthodoxy which we would be prudent to leave outside the nave. Fr. John in this passage reminds one a bit of the Schmemann project - to return Orthodoxy to a pure 'Biblical' or pristine form. Those of us in America have seen the mixed results of that project, and the dangers involved. Two principle dangers to such historicist projects are worth noting: First when you turn to history for a pure form to return to, you are necessarily subjective in the choosing of which forms to pull forward into contemporary use - one might choose deaconesses, another might choose public confession, another holding property in common, another the view that marriage need not be a sacrament of the Church, another the strict, long penances. When considering which ancient practices survived and which did not, the Catholic phrase the scandal of particularity comes to mind. Sometimes we just have to suffer with the history we bear. Second, this subjective quality involved in the relatively arbitrary choosing of which ancient practices we will return to normative praxis is what invites ideology into the consideration of proper Church order. If we have not yet learned the lesson of the Nikonian reforms, we need to. Politics from inside and outside of the Church tends to manipulate such changes and create a minefield. Common piety is put under threat, and a necessary degree of confusion is involved for some time. Create deaconesses in the Orthodox Church, and persons and groups with various agendas will both interpret the act in various ways (promoting their own interpretations) and seek to use the new praxis as a catalyst for other actions. It is not just the pro-WO folks who will be doing this. Trads and folks with lingering Protestant 'complementarian' views will also become agendically involved in an ideological manner.
• With regard to the decision in Greece, I am pleased with Fr. John's take on the matter. It strikes me as poorly handled. When do these deaconesses administer the Eucharist? Presanctifieds? Just during Lent or at other times? It would seem within the parameters of precedent if they are giving the Eucharist to the sick, but it sounds almost as if they are doing something akin to those Roman Catholic "eucharistic services" run by a nun when a priest is not present. I am not aware of any ritual for such an event within Orthodoxy. Was one created? It would seem from Fr. John's description that these new minor order deaconesses play a more priestly liturgical role than the major order deaconesses (let us assume for the moment with Fr. John that they were actually that) of old did.
• This leads again to questions of visible form. It seems that deaconesses have a different liturgical role than deacons, but the passage above refers to some sort of vesture for deaconesses. Are the deaconesses in Greece wearing deacons' vestments during DL? If so, does anyone have a photo of this? It would seem unnecessary for a deaconess to wear a deacon's vesture as we now have it if she is not chanting the litanies or otherwise leading the Church's worship. If deaconesses are to wear some sort of vesture, do they also wear head-coverings, or does the notion of deaconesses assume the cessation of women's head-coverings? If a deaconess is a celibate but not a monastic, should she wear something akin to a cassock or some other churchly attire when attending services? If we have no such iconographic imagery within the memory of the Church, are we doing violence to the Tradition of the Church to insert such images? Then again, most folks who have been to a woman's monastery know that certain liturgical roles we normally associate with men do get performed by women in certain settings. But those women are in monastic habits because of their very serious vows. There is something to the nature of those vows which seems to have some effect upon their liturgical activities outside of the monastery - we do not normally see nuns doing those same liturgical activities when visiting a non-monastic parish.
• The matter of increased women's education is frequently brought up during discussions of WO. I don't think the users of this line of thought intend it, but I find the suggestion misogynist. Orthodox have ordained plenty of poorly educated priests for most of our history - we still do this today in many places. Why should women now be considered worthy of major orders because they have managed, generally speaking, to educate themselves. Arguments for or against WO should revolve around ontology and soteriology, and if we veer into existential matters it should remain close to ontology and soteriology. If we want to talk about deaconesses, let's talk about who they are and how holy they are and how their persons are to be rightly imaged in the Church. That they now have graduate degrees should not be directing our praxis. The first priests and bishops were largely illiterate or at least poorly educated. To suggest that now is the time to restore (or for the first time place) women to major orders
  because of education is to suggest that they are not worthy of the office until they jump through hoops men did not have to jump through. It never ceases to amaze me that misogyny is found on all sides of this debate - it is a misnomer to think that to be in favor of WO means that one is truly egalitarian with regard to the ontology of women and men. Here I will again state my admiration of the recent work of Valarie Karras, who, though I disagree with some of her conclusions, has moved away from arguments which rest much on historicist and social science data, and has sought to argue for WO on the basis of Christological and Trinitarian logic and method that is consistent with the Orthodox ordo theologiae. Because of this her later work is, in my opinion, to be taken seriously, whatever one thinks of her conclusions. She is probably the most theologically astute feminist theologian in the United States, of any ecclesial stripe, which should at least grant us bragging rights ("our feminist is smarter than yours").
• All that said, and leaving aside the question of ordination vs. blessing of deaconesses, I have to say that I do not see a fundamental problem, on the basis of theological or ritual principles, with the outline of the role and function Fr. John describes of the ancient female diaconate. A celibate deaconess who helps educate women and girls in the Church, visits sick and invalid women, assists with the initiation of female catechumen, and so forth would seem a venerable office.
• While I fully admit the limitations regarding the use of the term, due to subjectivity and cross-cultural relativity, I think it safe to say that most Orthodox today, and not just those living in the West, would call most of the normative treatment of women both inside and outside of the Church (in cultures in which Orthodoxy is the established faith) in times and ages past misogynist (obviously, by modern standards). It can be cute to dismiss this point, but most of the men I know who so dismiss it would not want their wife or daughters to be subject to the social and ecclesial standards of, say, 15th century Greece. Aside from questions of historicism and the problems of social science analysis applied to Church praxis, the fact is that there is a great deal of data concerning this issue floating about today, and as time goes by more and more persons become aware of that data. It would seem that modern societies will continue to move in more 'gender' egalitarian directions, and as this occurs it is natural to ask what the right image of women in the Church should be, on a practical level, given that the role of women and the existential environment of women today is different than women of other times and places. In response to such questions, having a priest make a joke about how his wife is the boss of his household is condescending and does not cut it. Fr. John is correct to state that answers should be given on this account. Given that the experience of women in social orders outside the Church has so drastically changed, we need wisdom and discernment with regard to how women are supposed to maneuver their place in social orders outside of the Church in balance (synergy) with those inside the Church. It is a confusing time to be a man or a woman today, given fast moving and substantial changes in commonly asserted 'gender' meanings and negotiations of said meanings, and amorphous social orders. It is natural to humans to expect a synergy between the roles of females and males outside the Church to more or less correspond to forms inside the Church. If we are not going to take the Amishish route - if our daughters are going to go to school through 12th grade and probably college (or time learning a trade), if they are going to own property and have careers and so forth (and no matter how patriarchal one is today, sometimes men die, and thus sometimes even women from patriarchal homes must support a family or depend upon charity that now assumes a woman in such circumstances will eventually go out and support her family, or, she must starve, which may be the preference of some ideologues), then a synergy between roles in the Church and roles outside the Church will require some creativity with regard to the development of a wise intuition. This can be difficult when a misogyny still exists in many corners of the Church. Hearing the manner in which the corruptsiarch +Philip kept referring to Sarah Hodges as "dear," complete with condescending tone, at the recent AOANA convention was a poignant reminder.
• Given what I have written immediately above, I am going to backtrack a bit. Despite the considerable ideological dangers involved with changes in the Church's praxis, I must also admit that there seems to be a genuine need for an image of a traditioned form of womanly spiritual authority in the Church. It seems to me that this would ideally be met first by a local female monastery, but most parishes (to our shame) do not have local female monasteries. It also seems to me that pious and spiritually mature widows and older women might naturally fill this role. It seems to me that there could be a significant, worthy, and venerable grace involved in vesting this role with a formal recognition of its place in the bosom of the Church, and that it involve actual spiritual authority. There is plenty of unquestioned precedent for women exerting spiritual authority - from the Theotokos to St. Macrina to my favorite - St. Hilda, who ruled simultaneously as Abbess over both the women's and men's monasteries at Whitby. I think it best to normally have such a position held by a celibate woman of mature age and life experience.
• But when we talk about spiritual authority, we need to remember that expressions of such authority are usually quite different between men and women. The authority of the Theotokos, St. Macrina, and St. Hilda is a different sort of authority than that expressed by the men of their age. I am not inclined to think that this is merely a matter of social convention, but rather that it also has to do with the meaning of manhood and womanhood. It has been to the detriment of the secular social order to assume that women in leadership roles should be expected to act more 'male' than men. If we accept Fr. John's thesis, deaconesses in the ancient Church exercised quite a different ministry than deacons. Thus if we use the ancient form as an image of what a modern form might be, it would seem that a modern deaconess should minister in a decidedly different manner than a deacon. I am not sure what a proper form of womanly spiritual authority in the Church should be - perhaps it should rise from charism and not ritualized form, perhaps ritualized form should grace existing charisms, but it seems to me that we should not deny that such authority exists, and we should not fear a recognition of what is good, and true, and beautiful, and, most importantly, that which is holy.
• The most important consideration with regard to questions of changes in praxis is this - unless we are left with no other choice due to 'facts on the ground' or some unquestionable divine intervention, praxis should only be tweaked very slowly, and with a great deal of conciliarity. If the order of deaconess is to be restored (again, I set aside the question of ordained vs. blessed), let us do so carefully, with right circumspection, with a spirit of mercy toward those who will live in the Church after us, and with the intuition that we are mimetic beings, who can be saved by form, but also crushed by it. We should always be seeking the wisdom to discern whether or not the forms we currently embrace, or are considering embracing, crush or bless. Such discernments are not uncomplicated.